Fluff, Snuff, and Muff. (On Mass Effect, Fox News, and semantics)

[GloatingSwine]

As I understand it though the ESRB rating actually has no legal weight, whereas supplying BBFC rated content to someone under the indicated age can land you a £5000 fine and six months in prison.

 

[tiredinnuendo]

I fully admit that I have no idea of the legal weight of the ESRB. It's mostly up to store policy to police it, I believe. Generally speaking, if I went into a store and complained that my ten-year old was able to buy Manhunt (or whatever) I'd fully expect action to be taken. That said, since game ratings aren't federally regulated, I'm not sure that they'd technically *have* to do anything.

- J

 

[monodiabloloco]

Ban? No. Regulate? Yes. A child shouldn't be able to go into a shop and be able to buy a game rated 18. They can't buy tickets for 18 rated films, they can't buy 18 rated DVDs, games should be no different. Likewise if a mother is buying a game such as GTA, the adult content of should be expressly pointed out to her (though to be honest, she should do some research into the game she's buying beforehand).

That IS how it works
IF a person buys GTA and you are on register, your compelled to Tell them "this game is not for kids, made for adults, blah blah blah" and guess what
the majority STILL buy it, despite all the warnings, because what little Shit A. wants little Shit A. Gets

Usually this does seem to be the case. I did, however, see a worker at Game Stop this weekend point out to a parent (who had no effing idea what she was buying her kid) that the game she was about to buy for little Jimmy (who had this smug I'm-pulling-one-over-on-my-mom look on his face whe she wasn't looking, and an innocent smile when she was)was a M rated mature game. She then told him he would have to pick a different game, thanked the worker, and put the game back. (while the worker was shrugging to the kid, "Just doin' my job!") I actually applauded in the store. As a side note, and to kinda lessen the small nudge toward being a good parent I had just witnessed, the kid who was game-blocked was throwing a near fit and being a little ass and his mom let it happen. As I was buying my game (Mario Party DS) my six year old daughter.. super great kid that she is, said loud enough for most of the store to hear, "Daddy, why is he such a brat?" me-semi jokingly, "I don't know, honey. Maybe he wasn't beaten enough." my daughter just nodded sagely.

 

[werepossum]

No problem. I'm a bit of a redneck myself - although strangely unmoved by such topics as gay marriage or abortion. I suppose I'm a disfunctional redneck. LOL

Fox is hard enough for me to watch as it is. CNN often does better news, it's just that CNN is so liberal that even when they try to be fair it's difficult. I remember a classic CNN debate on Clinton's policies versus Bush's policies. Clinton was represented by James Carville and Paul Begalla, two Democrat attack dogs, while Bush was represented by Bill Sammon (who says he voted for Clinton) and David Gergen (who worked for Clinton.) And the host was George Stephanopolis, who have been Clinton's senior advisor a year before. Now I don't particularly like Clinton or Bush - I haven't actually liked an American president since Reagan, I'll admit - but I prefer honest bias to a sham of fairness. At least Fox gives you two sets of attack dogs, equally dishonest and equally liable to bite your ankles. Although that's after a segment of Fox cameramen filming papparazzi filming Britney attempt to drive. (I keep forgetting which one is supposed to be serious reportage...)

BTW, Fox News is catching Obamamania too. Evidently you just can't listen to this man's speeches without falling in love. Screw it, I think I'll vote for him too. I don't agree with any of his policies or values, but at least he's honest about what he believes. (And too smart to actually tell people what he'll do if elected. Just imagine what you want changed and believe that's what he's going to do.) And he gives a great speech, so even if I hate what he does he'll make it sound good. And he is inspiring.

Mono, I heartily agree with the beating sentiment. Way too many obliviots out there. And they're just the ones to demand that the government "do something" to avoid their own responsibility.

And ain't nothing like a good ass-whoopin' to put things into their proper perspective. LOL

 

[werepossum]

As I understand it though the ESRB rating actually has no legal weight, whereas supplying BBFC rated content to someone under the indicated age can land you a £5000 fine and six months in prison.

As an American I can tell you we are completely unable to deal with a rating system with four letters. We're the land of AADD; we lose interest somewhere around the second letter. And even one letter is often too much to cope with if it means denying Little Darling something it really, really wants. Too many best pals and too few parents. (If you are your minor child's best friend then at least one of you has some serious issues.)

 

[wilsonscrazybed]

No problem. I'm a bit of a redneck myself - although strangely unmoved by such topics as gay marriage or abortion. I suppose I'm a disfunctional redneck. LOL

Fox is hard enough for me to watch as it is. CNN often does better news, it's just that CNN is so liberal that even when they try to be fair it's difficult. I remember a classic CNN debate on Clinton's policies versus Bush's policies. Clinton was represented by James Carville and Paul Begalla, two Democrat attack dogs, while Bush was represented by Bill Sammon (who says he voted for Clinton) and David Gergen (who worked for Clinton.) And the host was George Stephanopolis, who have been Clinton's senior advisor a year before. Now I don't particularly like Clinton or Bush - I haven't actually liked an American president since Reagan, I'll admit - but I prefer honest bias to a sham of fairness. At least Fox gives you two sets of attack dogs, equally dishonest and equally liable to bite your ankles. Although that's after a segment of Fox cameramen filming papparazzi filming Britney attempt to drive. (I keep forgetting which one is supposed to be serious reportage...)

BTW, Fox News is catching Obamamania too. Evidently you just can't listen to this man's speeches without falling in love. Screw it, I think I'll vote for him too. I don't agree with any of his policies or values, but at least he's honest about what he believes. (And too smart to actually tell people what he'll do if elected. Just imagine what you want changed and believe that's what he's going to do.) And he gives a great speech, so even if I hate what he does he'll make it sound good. And he is inspiring.

I got Hank Williams Sr. blasting in the background right now. That might qualify me as a redneck in some people's eyes. To me it's either McCain (whom I adore as a former service member) or Obama who I also like because he's not Hillary. Either way, this election will be the first one in my life time where I don't feel like it's voting the lesser of two evils. To keep this game related, if Hillary gets elected you can expect tighter government controls on media. Her and Lieberman both, they're much more traditionally conservative than even the republican candidates.

 

[monodiabloloco]

No problem. I'm a bit of a redneck myself - although strangely unmoved by such topics as gay marriage or abortion. I suppose I'm a disfunctional redneck. LOL

Fox is hard enough for me to watch as it is. CNN often does better news, it's just that CNN is so liberal that even when they try to be fair it's difficult. I remember a classic CNN debate on Clinton's policies versus Bush's policies. Clinton was represented by James Carville and Paul Begalla, two Democrat attack dogs, while Bush was represented by Bill Sammon (who says he voted for Clinton) and David Gergen (who worked for Clinton.) And the host was George Stephanopolis, who have been Clinton's senior advisor a year before. Now I don't particularly like Clinton or Bush - I haven't actually liked an American president since Reagan, I'll admit - but I prefer honest bias to a sham of fairness. At least Fox gives you two sets of attack dogs, equally dishonest and equally liable to bite your ankles. Although that's after a segment of Fox cameramen filming papparazzi filming Britney attempt to drive. (I keep forgetting which one is supposed to be serious reportage...)

BTW, Fox News is catching Obamamania too. Evidently you just can't listen to this man's speeches without falling in love. Screw it, I think I'll vote for him too. I don't agree with any of his policies or values, but at least he's honest about what he believes. (And too smart to actually tell people what he'll do if elected. Just imagine what you want changed and believe that's what he's going to do.) And he gives a great speech, so even if I hate what he does he'll make it sound good. And he is inspiring.

Mono, I heartily agree with the beating sentiment. Way too many obliviots out there. And they're just the ones to demand that the government "do something" to avoid their own responsibility.

And ain't nothing like a good ass-whoopin' to put things into their proper perspective. LOL

From one enlightened redneck to another:
Hell yeah! We didn't have shit like 'ADD' in my day. We had 'behave or I'll beat your ass'.
The constant threat of a good ass whippin' from my pop when I got home.. as well as a paddling at school..AND (this is the worst)an "I'm dissapointed in you." from my mom kept me from acting like a little ass and concentrating on my classwork. Hell, I'm 31, live 1/2 way round the earth from my mom, and if she starts in on me, I'm all 'yes, ma'am.'.
Since my original post, I have witnessed a woman grab up on her kid's arm, pull him up, then spank his ass a good one right in the middle of our local shopping mall. Bravo, I say, bravo..

 

[Parallel Streaks]

I like to consider myself a mature and worldly individual, mostly because thats to keep me from realising I'm a teenager who still enjoys playing games with a 6+ rating. But seriously, it's up to the parents to separate the good from the bad games, there's a fairly big age rating on the box. It's not like Mass Effect is Grand Theft Auto, you don't kill whores and hijack cars, you save the freaking galaxy. Any Sex scenes to me are a mere distraction, partly because I'm not attracted to BLUE PIXEL ALIENS, and partly because you don't see a damn thing. Mass Effect 'Sex' scenes are about as tame as a sleeping Panda, it's tastefuly done if I'm any judge, and it's not like seeing your ugly and bad-ass character moving around on a roughly woman shaped blob of programming is going to make you into the Strangle-Whore Killer, plus Kids are exposed to much worse. The Older kids describing in horrific detail what Sex actually is, Giant semi-naked women on the sides of busses, and Gilbert Godfried. Nuff Said for that last one. I may not have much experience with...people, but I have to say that I don't think Kids are stupid enough to relate the naked blue alien on his/her screen to the average women walking the streets. It's when they start asking "Mommy, why aren't you bwue?" that we can unload the Anti Video-Game attack dogs.

As for the election, I don't care, I don't live in America, as long as our Prime Minister here in England isn't George Bush I don't find it nescessary to be up to date on politics.

 

[werepossum]

I think even the densest researcher would admit that teenagers can tell the difference between blue multisexual aliens and reality.

Why aren't these people doing studies on old women who think Opra or the chicks on Home Shopping are their friends anyway? Or better yet, do a study on those people who think politicians actually give a damn about them.

 

[i_am_undead]

Your points are certainly well thought out, wilsoncrazybed, and major props for the documentation.

The people at "The Fox News Network" are experts at exploiting our fears and turning that weakness into "news." Just like with violent games - what better way to introduce a topic to parents than to play with the parents' instinctive protective sense for their children.

That's how most media works - it is designed to appeal to our base instincts so we develop feelings about the information presented, rather than ideas.

 

[ksumoe]

Recently, I've seen a lot of debate on if the United States Government should overhaul (read: take over) the industry sanctioned ESRB. The main point that those in favor of this act is that the current system does not work, and it's at this point that I begin to wonder about the state of humanity and the world. The current way the system works (This is from my point of view and is from the view of the average consumer. If I'm wrong please forgive me.) is that after a game is completed it is shipped off to the ESRB for rating. After the ESRB reviews the game it gives it a rating of E for young children and older, T for teenagers, M for mature adults, or the oft dreaded AO for adults only. It's at this point that if the game is rated M it gets the green light to be shipped off to the various foundations of retail around the country. It's at this point that the product reaches the consumer, be it an adult or a child, and it's at this point that that either A) if the consumer is a child and the rating on the game is acceptable for that age group, he/she can buy the game, or if it is unacceptable, the retailer should deny* the sale of the product. Then there's situation B) the consumer being an adult, if buying the game for a child, needs to actually use their God given eyes and look* at the products they are buying for the child and make a decision* on if the game is acceptable for the child to have. This action is, at least here in America, called Parenting*. The parent can even turn the game over and look* on the back of the product to get a more detailed description on why the game was rated the way it was rated. In this case for Mass Effect it was rated M for Mature because of Blood, Language, Partial Nudity, Sexual Themes, and Violence. Something that I know I wouldn't want my child to have, and I would like to think that most parents would think the same way.

Now I want you to do* something. Go back to the above paragraph and find all the asterisks. These little stars denote an action something that, unfortunately, most people do not know how to do. This can be defined by the following word: action. Most people here in America don't want to do anything. Parenting? Too much work, so I let the daycare do it. Looking on the box to find the rating? Takes too much time, I have soap operas to watch or I have to get back to ignoring my family and get to my below-average paying job. It is a sad commentary on the state of the America and some parts of the world. There once was a time where families sat around the table and not around the televsion, mindlessly watching the new episode of American Idle (See what I did there? That's called humor, also something most people lack today.) Fathers and mothers actually cared about what their children were getting into. Alas it is not entirely the parents fault. Blame can be lain upon the retailers too! It is their moral responsibility to ask for identification when some adult, or, egad, even a child, tries to by a game rated M.

Alas there is nothing we can do about the parents. Those that don't care would rather sit on their collective rear ends and have the Federal Government become a nanny state and do it for them. Frankly, if those parents don't care then nothing should be done about it. It's their Constitutional right to choose, and if the government ever does step in to the scene it does so under the auspices of Socialism, because "We're right, and you, the parent, are wrong." America has already progressed too far in that direction for me. That is why I'm building a rocket ship in my back yard. I'm going somewhere else (read: the Citadel)!

This leaves us with the retailers to deal with. If the retailers do not fulfill their moral obligation to enforce the ESRB ratings system, which I again remind you is self-regulatory, then, yes, they should be punished for not complying. As what the punishment should be I currently do not have an idea on what it could be. I have to put more thought into it.

That punishment should be dealt out to the retailers, but the nagging question in my mind is this. What percentage of retailers do not verify the age of the consumer buying the mature rated product? This should be, no, *needs* to be determined in an independent way. Parties on both sides of the issue need to get together and instruct a separate, unbiased organization to research the issue, and it needs to be done in such a way that the retailers don't know about it (i.e. no press releases regarding the issue). If the report shows that a majority of retailers do verify the age of the consumer, then those in favor of more regulation need to back down. If the report shows the opposite then something needs to be done about it, but not in the way that most people want. Instead of grandstanding and acting like a bunch of little children who just found out they were right, they should be proactive and help the ESRB *refine* the way the ratings system works. Everything in this world, without exception, can always use refining, because nothing can ever be perfect. Reality is that 100% detection of minors buying M rated games will never happen. I do think that, currently, more could be done to inform people about how to use the system that's in place. Commercials on the television (telly or box for you British chaps) about the ratings would most assuredly help.

I'm all for protecting our children from things that can harm them. How we do that protection is up to the parties involved, and the government is not and should never be involved.

________

On the issue of Fox News:

I do watch Fox News (tho not very often, I hate politics), and yes I am a Republican. Note that this means that I agree with the majority of what the Republican party does, but not with everything they do. Yes, I like President Bush. No, I don't agree with everything he does. Yes, I watch Fox News. No, I don't agree with everything they say or do. The Mass Effect debacle being of utmost prominence. I do dislike Bill O'Reilly. I have encountered many people that assume that because I watch Fox News, that I have a massive hard-on for Bill O'Reilly. The man is arrogant and without regard for his guests.


And to all sum it up for those that didn't read all of that: People have always had a choice. If you choose to ignore the tools you have in front of you that are there to help you make a responsible choice. That's is your decision. Don't come blaming others when your child chops up his classmates.

I choose to be a Republican. Please don't assume that it means I'm a mindless nitwit. I can and do choose whatever I want to believe regardless of what the majority may agree on. I associate myself with them because they are the closest group that falls in line with my beliefs.

Yours truly, now that my anger has been vented:
ksumoe

 

[RoundhouseR]

Everyone needs someone to blame. This time, it's the gaming industry. Every generation will have its alarmists that need to pick something to ***** about, and eventually this will get old and people will realize it's full of crap anyway.

But seriously, FOX, couldn't you at least come up with facts that are true? If you have to make up bullshit about "full digital nudity" and supposedly having full control over the sex, maybe you should come up with something else to complain about.

 

[werepossum]

Being from the southern USA I was of course raised as a good Democrat. It was only after Reagan came along that I'd even consider voting for any Republican, and after Reagan he was my last until Bush in 2004 (I voted Libertarian, thereby avoiding any reasonable chance of responsibility for the dog's breakfast both parties make of the country.) However once I started following politics (late 70s) I was appalled at the votes and speeches of those I had previously supported. To paraphrase Matt Stone and/or Trey Parker, I hate the Republicans, but I really, really hate the Democrats.

My wife shares your hatred of O'Reilly for the same reason - his arrogance, and how he hates to be crossed. I still watch him, but I will agree that his neck is way too small to carry that hugely swelled head.

I fear however that we are beyond the event horizon for the nanny state. When I see so many people interviewed who state that they don't believe Social Security will be there for them, but they oppose privatization because they don't want the responsibility of making decisions about their own retirement - I despair for my country's future. Now our government is about to borrow $150,000,000,000 to give out as "tax rebates" (do I smell an election year? I think I do!) so that we can all buy more Chinese-made goods. I have every faith this will stimulate an economy, just not ours.

Dave Ramsey said it best: We're spending money we don't have for things we don't need to impress people we don't like.

 

[ksumoe]

My wife shares your hatred of O'Reilly for the same reason - his arrogance, and how he hates to be crossed. I still watch him, but I will agree that his neck is way too small to carry that hugely swelled head.

There are some points that I do agree with him on, but the measurable "good" that dribbles out is outweighed by the measurable "bad" that oozes profusely.

It irks me to no end when he interrupts a guest that is not even 4 words into their opinion, and then he tells them what they supposedly believe. Shut the hell up and let the person finish what they have to say! He says that he gives the opportunity for both sides of the story to be heard, but that claim is light years away from the truth.

 

[werepossum]

But seriously, FOX, couldn't you at least come up with facts that are true? If you have to make up bullshit about "full digital nudity" and supposedly having full control over the sex, maybe you should come up with something else to complain about.

That's my primary beef with news reporting. The few times I've been around something that made the news, the reportage was been about 180 off. The more you know about something, the more likely you'll recognize that the reporter is full of shite. And they never admit they were wrong. One minute they report 19 people have been killed; the next minute it's three people dead, with never a mention of how they reported something completely wrong a minute before. I blame the shift in journalism schools in the sixties. Previously journalism was something you did because you were a literature major or loved newspapers or wanted to be on televison. In the sixties, that shifted; journalism became a career for changing the world. Now what you say is more important than whether it's accurate. Probably even more important is whether or not what you say will bring in and hold viewers without pissing off the sponsors.

I will say though that this one is particularly egregious. You can't exactly rerun the World Trade Towers being struck; you have to go with whatever footage you're lucky enough to have and those muddled eyewitness reports. But how hard is it to actually view video game footage? Find an intern or someone's kid with a console, give 'em a few hours, and you're in. Today the truth is only an excuse for people to say the message that they want to get out, so no one bothers to actually read or watch the supposedly offensive material. Those talking head idiots can be excused to some degree; they were going to push the same agenda no matter what actually was in the game. But McCullum should be ashamed. If you host or moderate a debate, even a 2 minute debate such as that, you should have a clear picture of the true facts, to the extent they can be known. She obviously had no clue, and worse, instead of admitting she hadn't a clue she obviously believed the accusations and spoke as though she had personally witnessed the alleged full frontal digital nudity.

 

[werepossum]

My wife shares your hatred of O'Reilly for the same reason - his arrogance, and how he hates to be crossed. I still watch him, but I will agree that his neck is way too small to carry that hugely swelled head.

There are some points that I do agree with him on, but the measurable "good" that dribbles out is outweighed by the measurable "bad" that oozes profusely.

It irks me to no end when he interrupts a guest that is not even 4 words into their opinion, and then he tells them what they supposedly believe. Shut the hell up and let the person finish what they have to say! He says that he gives the opportunity for both sides of the story to be heard, but that claim is light years away from the truth.

He thinks if he repeats something louder, then his guest will surely agree. Often I agree with his point, but have to wonder why he even had the guest. Telling someone why their opinion is wrong works much better if they've actually managed to express it.

 

[m_jim]

I was really surprised to hear all the controversy about Mass Effect because I didn't catch wind of the FOX News report until after I'd beaten the game. When I think back to all the other R-rated movies that I snuck into during my misguided youth, all this flak about how 15 seconds of side-ass is going to irreparably damage America's youth makes me laugh.

 

[i_am_undead]

Ksumoe-

I totally agree that much of the responsibility lies with the retailers as well as the parents. I work for a game retailer where I (as well as all the other employees) take great care in reading to parents the explicit ESRB warning labels contained on the cover of every game case. I would say that 19 out of 20 of those parents STILL purchase the "M" rated titles for their underage children - and I sincerely wish that was an exaggeration.

If education on the ratings system continues to happen in the store, then parents will be empowered to make more balanced decisions on the issue.

 

[Flionk]

The ESRB rating system does not in itself have any inherent problems. It's how retailers treat the ratings that causes a problem.

I know for a fact that in a vast majority of game retailers - at least in the New England area - will sell M-rated games to anyone. I'm only 21, and looking at me it wouldn't be immediately obvious that I'm over 18, yet of all the times I've personally purchased M-rated games I've been carded exactly once. I've personally witnessed kids who were clearly under 18 purchasing M-rated games. Most retailers don't care who's buying, if they've got the money.

I generally believe that there shouldn't be any legal sanction to games. Heck, the American film rating system doesn't carry any legal weight [http://www.filmratings.com/questions.htm#Q6] either; the ratings are only enforced by the moral consciences of theater managers. If more game retailers had that sense of moral responsibility, we really wouldn't be in this mess (well ok, we probably still would be, but at least we'd be able to put full blame on absent-minded parents).

 

[i_am_undead]

Flionk,
Okay, if we shouldn't sanction M-rated games to keep them out of the hands of children, then take a look at this.

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/50966

If that didn't change your mind, then you don't understand that children (who are legally classified as people who are legal dependents and who are 17 years of age or younger) often times have difficulty drawing the line where their video games end and where reality begins.

This isn't about censorship or artistic freedom, it's about people making responsible decisions. The worst game you could own when I was a kid was Mortal Kombat 1. The worst game a child can see nowadays is probably Manhunt 1 or any grand theft auto title. There is a vast difference in the explicit content of yester-year to what games can achieve nowadays in terms of graphics, sound,and presentation.

Should a child really be able to buy a game where a naked man wearing a pig's head chases you around a dark room with a chainsaw, where you are equipped with nothing but a shard of glass? Well, if I had a child, I would say "no," and I would hope that every game retailer who values staying open would ID, as it is a felony now to sell "M" rated games to children (not mention a severe liability).